9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the complaint he has clearly stated that the petitioner obtained a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- from him in lieu of sale of his residential plot in favour of the complainant as he was in need of money for commercial purposes and that he issued the said cheque of ₹ 4,50,000/- in his favour. Before the trial Court, he has reiterated the same facts and proved the same by leading documentary evidence. This Court is of the opinion that the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As looking to the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, the Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing his imprisonment from three months to till rising o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ens to be the relative of the complainant and relations between them were cordial. The petitioner being in need of money for his business obtained a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- from the complainant against selling of his residential plot in favour of the complainant and in lieu of the said amount, he issued a cheque bearing No.040143 dated 12.02.2016 amounting to ₹ 4,50,000/- of HDFC Bank, Bargarh (Orissa). However, when the said cheque was presented by the complainant before the Corporation Bank Pandri, District Raipur, C.G. on 20.02.2016, the same stood dishonoured on 23.02.2016 due to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice on 25.02.2016 to the petitioner through his Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manifestly clear that the complainant has duly proved his case. There is no complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding theft of the cheque in question or its misuse by the complainant. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has no criminal record, the Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view and modified the sentence, as such there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7.Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 8.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9.From the record, it is seen that a cheque amounting to ₹ 4,50,000/- bearing the signature of the petitioner was issued in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it being distinguishable from the facts of the present case is of no help to him. 11.On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As looking to the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, the Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing his imprisonment from three months to till rising of the Court by directing him to pay compensation of ₹ 5,50,000/- to the complainant in place of payment of fine ₹ 4,70,000/-, no interference is required with the sentence part as well. 12.Resultantly, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
